EHAA

[awm]

Perhaps it's worthwhile to consider for a moment what the "problems" are with a fairly standard approach like 2/1 before deciding which systems are best in high-level competition? My observation is that there are two main weaknesses in a very vanilla 2/1 approach:

 

(1) Not enough science. This is more of a big deal at IMPs, where slam bidding is very important. It helps to play complex checkback methods over 1NT rebids or opener's raise of responder's suit, to use relays in some auctions, to improve over jacoby 2NT, to have specific agreements about cuebidding sequences after an early game force. Note that most of the best pairs who play "2/1" do have agreements of this form -- they're just not so much a part of the vanilla 2/1 toolbox. It's conceivable (but not obvious) that you can do an even better job of this kind of thing using a strong/prepared club and/or relay based system.

 

(2) Opening the weak distributional hands. There is a pretty big payoff to opening, for example, on hands with 6-9 hcp which are 5-5 in two suits (particularly if the suits are decent). Passing these sorts of hands can actually be a pretty big net loser, and opening them with a descriptive call can be a pretty big winner. Many top pairs do have some way to open these hands. Playing a basically 2/1 structure, the most common agreement is to use 2♦ multi and open some of these hand types at the two level. Playing a strong club, many folks will open some of these hands at the one level (so 1M becomes something like 8-15, but the 8-9 part of that range normally has a lot of shape). A few 2/1 players also open some of these hands at the one level, but this gives an opening range of 8-21 or so for 1M which I at least find unwieldy (I have not been impressed by these folks' results).

 

The problem (as I see it anyway) with EHAA is that there is almost a complete lack of "science" (even less than vanilla 2/1). So you lose a lot on slam bidding, especially bad at IMPs. And while EHAA does give you a way to open the hands from (2) via an EHAA two-bid, this is a highly non-descriptive call and the point is that opening these hands is a big winner when partner can figure out what you have, not that randomly opening them is any good.

 

Fantoni-Nunes methods have a lot more science than vanilla EHAA, and also the two-level bids are somewhat more controlled (the point range is much tighter for example).

[Apollo81]

Playing a strong club, many folks will open some of these hands at the one level (so 1M becomes something like 8-15, but the 8-9 part of that range normally has a lot of shape).

Many ?

[effervesce]

Playing a strong club, many folks will open some of these hands at the one level (so 1M becomes something like 8-15, but the 8-9 part of that range normally has a lot of shape).

Many ?

0.001% of bridge players can still be regarded as many I suppose :) (Assuming 100 million bridge players, that's 1000 people).

[effervesce]

This idea of 1♣ as 18+ intrigues me. What do people think of the playability of the following system

 

1♣ 18+ any

1♦ = 11-17, 0+ diamonds no 5CM or 6Cm unless 6-5+ in minors OR 15-17 with a 6+ minor

1♥/1♠ = 11-17 5+ suit

1NT = 15-17 bal

2C = 10-14, 6+ suit

2D = 10-14, 6+ suit

2M = weak two

2NT = weak, minors

 

It seems to me that opening 1♣ as 18+ greatly improves the usability of precision systems utilising semipositive responses, with 1♦ GF, 1♠ negative, others semipositive. OTOH, I doubt there are supposed benefits of a higher minimum of 1♣. People would be even more eager to interfere, and they're even less likely to miss game by interfering.

[Finch]

One pair of occasional team-mates play a 1C opening as natural, or balanced outside the NT range, or any game force (xfer responses) because they wanted to play 2C as showing both majors.

(This is getting a bit off topic for an EHAA thread, but...)

 

Assuming you mean both majors, weak, or at least relatively weak, then I see the attraction of an Ekren style bid. Not so sure why your teammates would want 2C for this purpose though - it works OK as a 2D call and trickier as a 2H call.

 

Also, only putting GF hands into 1C leaves 1M very wide ranging indeed, especially if you like opening the odd rule of 18 hand with a 1 bid - but even if you stick to rule of 20 it is at the limit of workability in my opinion (SAYC).

They use 2D as 18-19 balanced and 2M as weak.

 

1M is no wider than in their original 'standard' methods where 2C is game forcing

[Finch]

Playing a strong club, many folks will open some of these hands at the one level (so 1M becomes something like 8-15, but the 8-9 part of that range normally has a lot of shape).

Many ?

Many in the context of people playing a strong club.

[Gerben42]

It seems to me that opening 1♣ as 18+ greatly improves the usability of precision systems utilising semipositive responses, with 1♦ GF, 1♠ negative, others semipositive. OTOH, I doubt there are supposed benefits of a higher minimum of 1♣. People would be even more eager to interfere, and they're even less likely to miss game by interfering.

 

The strong ♣ wouldn't come up nearly enough, and the upper limit of 17 HCP for the limited bids is not useful enough.

 

I prefer:

 

1♣ in 1st and 2nd: 15+ (16+ if bal.)

 

1♣ in 3rd and 4th: 17+ (18+ if bal.)

[mycroft]

Dragging the thread back kicking and screaming to the title, I have investigated a Southern EHAA variant that has 1C= clubs 13+ or 18+ any (keeping 2NT and 3NT openings as in standard (or tighten them slightly), 1D diamonds or 13-17 bal with Crowhurst or the like. I think that might work. 18+ strong club works better when the low end of the 1 bid is still Gorenesque (vis the original Schenken Club).

 

On the other hand, I don't play EHAA to win world championships, I play it because it's fun and it improves my judgment, useful when I go back to playing a real system. Not every session of bridge need be "second place is first loser".

[NickRW]

On the other hand, I don't play EHAA to win world championships, I play it because it's fun and it improves my judgment, useful when I go back to playing a real system. Not every session of bridge need be "second place is first loser".

That is a good attitude to have :blink:

 

Nick

[effervesce]

It seems to me that opening 1♣ as 18+ greatly improves the usability of precision systems utilising semipositive responses, with 1♦ GF, 1♠ negative, others semipositive. OTOH, I doubt there are supposed benefits of a higher minimum of 1♣. People would be even more eager to interfere, and they're even less likely to miss game by interfering.

 

The strong ♣ wouldn't come up nearly enough, and the upper limit of 17 HCP for the limited bids is not useful enough.

 

I prefer:

 

1♣ in 1st and 2nd: 15+ (16+ if bal.)

 

1♣ in 3rd and 4th: 17+ (18+ if bal.)

Isn't 1♣ not coming up that often a _good_ thing?

[NickRW]

Isn't 1♣ not coming up that often a _good_ thing?

Well, it depends. Reese's book on Precision suggested it was a good thing that the Precision 1♣ came up more often that the equivalent Blue Club bid.

 

I think the more modern view is that the whole bidding tree should be put to effective use, but allowing for the fact the opps will consume large chunks of it for you.

 

Nick